[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: IF types durring review of EPON-04
HI,
Thank you for the comments below. In my original message,
I was asking for ifType for the virtual interfaces. What
value do you think they should use, and why?
Regards,
/david t. perkins
On Fri, 19 May 2006, Dave Thaler wrote:
> Ok, I've looked through EPON-04 with respect to the relationship to the
> interfaces MIB and the Ethernet mib. (I also saw lots of typos and
> grammatical errors in EPON-04, so someone should probably go through it
> for those. It also has lots of acronyms which are not expanded on first
> use.)
>
> The key sentence in EPON-04 is in section 3.1:
> > Implementing this module therefore MUST require implementation of
> > Interfaces MIB module [RFC2863] and Ethernet-like Interfaces MIB
> > module [RFC3635].
>
> This is fine, since throughout the doc it says that EPON interfaces are
> Ethernet-like interfaces and they don't want to duplicate all the
> objects in that MIB.
>
> However, the problem is it uses gigabitEthernet(117).
>
> Section 3.2.4 of RFC 3635 (which, as quoted above, is a MUST for EPON
> interfaces) says:
> > It is REQUIRED that all ethernet-like interfaces
> > use an ifType of ethernetCsmacd(6) regardless of the speed that the
> > interface is running or the link-layer encapsulation in use.
> and
> > A requirement for
> > compliance with this document is that all ethernet-like interfaces
> > MUST return ethernetCsmacd(6) for ifType, and MUST NOT return
> > fastEther(62), fastEtherFX(69), or gigabitEthernet(117).
>
> It's pretty clear from the above that the only legal value for use in
> EPON is ethernetCsmacd(6).
>
> Similarly, the ianaiftype-mib says:
> > gigabitEthernet (117), -- Obsoleted via
> RFC-draft-ietf-hubmib-etherif-mib-v3 ethernetCsmacd (6) should be used
> instead
>
> (Yes the reference in the comment is stale... per
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hubmib-etherif-mib-v3-03.
> txt it is the same as RFC 3635 quoted above.)
>
> The layering model described on page 13 (of using one Ethernet-like
> interface that is stacked on top of a set of other Ethernet-like
> interaces) is fine. This is equivalent to what RFC 3371 (the L2TP MIB)
> does for multilink PPP for similar reasons.
>
> Since EPON is not defining a new ifType, the other requirements in RFC
> 2863 don't apply to it as they are met by RFC 3635.
>
> -Dave
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org]
> On
> > Behalf Of Dave Thaler
> > Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 10:49 AM
> > To: David T. Perkins; mreview@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: IF types durring review of EPON-04
> >
> > I've been doing the reviews of relationships to the Interfaces MIB, so
> > I can do this, but I'm swamped right now. I could probably get to
> this
> > by end of next week (5/19) if someone else doesn't get to it before
> > then.
> >
> > -Dave
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org]
> On
> > Behalf Of David T. Perkins
> > Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 10:25 AM
> > To: mreview@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: IF types durring review of EPON-04
> >
> > HI,
> >
> > I'm doing a second review of EPON-04 I-D, which is
> >
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hubmib-efm-epon-mib-04.tx
> > t
> >
> > It is very complex and the previous review raised many questions.
> > The good news is that it is MUCH better, and it is finally to the
> > level that someone can make sense of it. However, given that
> > it is an interface MIB module, there are many additional
> > considerations that must be followed. I don't remember all of
> > them, and would need to refresh myself with these considerations
> > to do a complete job. Is there anyone that can do a scan
> > after I finish the first pass?
> >
> > One question that I have so far is what interface type
> > to use for the virtual links. The document uses the
> > same value as the physical (which is gigabitEthernet(117)),
> > but it seems to me that the propVirtual(53) is more
> > appropriate.
> >
> > In trying to determine the value for ifType, I looked at
> > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ianaiftype-mib
> > In it I see that there are 234 types defined.
> > This seems like an extremely large number. Also,
> > there is not a reference for each assigned value.
> > Thus, I could not figure out from looking at
> > these values what values the should be used
> > in the EPON MIB module. This seems like a generic
> > problem that anyone implementing object ifType
> > would encounter. And a delemma for anyone creating
> > a new interface MIB module.
> >
> > Are there any suggestions that would help me
> > now with the EPON MIB module, and for making it
> > easier for future interface MIB module developers?
> >
> > Regards,
> > /david t. perkins
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>